Believe it or not, life is stirring in old Europe. The fate of that sad continent has always reminded me of a fantasy novel I read when I was 18 and read fantasy novels, Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana. As La Wik explains:

The plot focuses on a group of rebels attempting to overthrow both tyrants and win back their homeland. Many of the rebels are natives of the province of Tigana, which was the province that most ably resisted Brandin: In a crucial battle, Brandin's son was killed. In retaliation for this, Brandin attacked Tigana and crushed it more savagely than any other part of the Palm; then, following this victory, he used his magic to remove the name and history of Tigana from the minds of the population. Brandin named it Lower Corte, making Corte, their traditional enemies to their north, seem superior to a land that was all but forgotten.

Only those born in Tigana before the invasion can hear or speak its name, or remember it as it was; as far as everyone else is concerned, that area of the country has always been an insignificant part of a neighbouring province, hence the rebels are battling for the very soul of their country.

When we Americans contemplate the depressing spectacle of "European socialism" - ie, American socialism, sent by airmail - squatting like an evil alien bat where once reigned the forty kings that made France, it's hard for me to forget this otherwise trifling confection. Of course I assume the author had something entirely different in mind. But you never know.

Part of the problem is that mass media in Scandinavia (and elsewhere) allow massive quantities of hatred by anonymous/pseudonymous commentators to be attached to almost any article in the web editions of their publications. That is a marked shift for the publishing standards previously used for letters columns.

True, you can’t stop hate speech on all of the internet. But there is arguably a big difference between hate speech on fringe sites populated mostly by violencemongering racists/islamophobes and giving such individuals space in the comments section of large papers. That only gives them a sense of breakthrough and the comment section format makes robust counterargumentation not very likely. Papers ought to either ban anonymous comments altogether or hire enough moderators to be able to keep up with a very strict moderation 24/7.

Indeed. You'd think it would be trivial just to configure a filter which detected the word "Tigana" - replacing it with the correct "East England," simply ditching the post, or more proactively alerting the relevant authorities. Alas, there's no limit to the typographic tricks of these scoundrels. Fortunately, many socially conscious Europeans are already seeking employment. Now that we've seen the dangers, I'm sure this little newspaper thing will be solved toot sweet.

But concerned Americans may be surprised at the extent of information terrorism in East England. It's for our own good, of course. America is the Jedi nation, and it's natural that we fear the ancient peril of the Sith. If we knew how strong they have already become, in their old nest of East England, the cold reality might paralyze us into inaction. Can we ever forget that 250 years ago, America herself was nearly conquered by this foul pseudo-nation? Those days are over, of course. But if we are too quick to forget them, they might return.

For instance, I'd be surprised if there are a hundred Americans whose noble souls have been lost truly and for good to the utter darkness of reaction. That's not much of a reactosphere - more like a reacto-dot. When I search for the word réacosphère, however - yes, misspelled, I know, with the odd marks of East England's funny old dialect - I get - wait for it - 185,000 hits. Is that disturbing? Or is that disturbing? Don't forget, these same people came very close to killing George Washington.

Fortunately, one patriotic East Englishman is on the case. He has identified the central hive or Death Star of this hateful "réacosphère" - or as more socially conscious East Englishmen put it, fachosphère (I trust no translation is necessary). This is the notorious François Desouche. The identity of M. Desouche is not known. He is known to be a racist, however.

Fortunately, as an American I am unable to read East English - actually now illegal in many states. But like everything American, our computers are the best in the world, and can translate this horrible gargling muck with mechanical precision, saving my tonsils from carcinogenic hate speech. In fact, I suspect that Google's algorithms have actually improved this material.

Otherwise, it would surely have already done the trick, as M. Desouche is still out there abusing our tolerance. Whereas just from the picture, it's clear that East Englishmen have always known what to do about hate speech:

The caption reads:

The abuse of freedom of expression is a crime. Blogress arrested, 1832.

We must remember that those who tolerate intolerance abuse tolerance itself, and an enemy of tolerance is an enemy of democracy. If this isn't obvious to East Englishmen, perhaps we still have a few B-24 Liberators in the hangar somewhere. Remember - freedom isn't free.

But let's let this brave young East Englishman say his piece:

Why

Far be it from us to make amalgams shame or stigmatize anyone. But still. The [East English]-born, or under-dog, native to this country or shabby, is a young low-skilled, uneducated, unemployed, inbred, [East English], old, severely retarded, warty, syphilitic, illiterate, full of phobias, addictions and racist pedophiles who complacently lounging in a sea of ​​ignorance for living idly nauseating stench in a cave to vapors of wine, eating his feces, screaming loudly patriotic songs and German patiently accumulating his boogers as appetizers for holidays: Gandhi's death, discovery of the AIDS virus, the anniversary of his piranha Adolphe, eruption of Mount Vesuvius, the disappearance of a protected species, air disaster.

Jesus! The only bright spot is that no one in America matches this description - thanks, we can only assume, to our strict border controls. Still, the Internet is a loophole. How was I even able to access this post, for instance, without a research authorization? More can always be done. More needs to be done:

Pest, the native [East English], because of its puny and stunted body size, has only one interest in pharmaceutical clinical trials or as an extra in major films such as Gremlins and Troll 2. Outside the daily cleaning of his collection of cast iron blocks, the native [East Englishman] loves: his cheese rind, remembering his vacation on the Atlantic Wall, shine his boots, clean your terrarium cockroaches, watch hangings of 'homos on Iranian television, see Haitians small slam of Cholera, and shine his boots yet.

Frightened by the Enlightenment, it moves at night in his Panzer Used Tune blue-white-red and think go unnoticed by covering the sound tracks of powerful Wagnerian arias. Constantly in search of baby seals skinned alive in Africa to its mandibles racist, his little eyes anxiously scans the web vicious foul, attracted by the smell of the innocent who would come bogged down in the dark belly of the still fertile zeurlépluzombres.

Google tells me that this last word, or "word," has only been used once on the Internets. Whatever the truth is - I'm pretty sure I couldn't handle it:

That's why we say: sub-dogs are idiots and need to be silenced. Protect our democracy. Stop the stereotypes, stigma, looking for scapegoats to evade our responsibilities and shortcuts are easy to stifle debate. Because all together in the Living Together, we defend the diversity that enriches us close mixed as millions of small sticks and colored sugar.

All together in the Living Together! Sub-dogs are idiots and need to be silenced!

M. Derville then cites a long list of responsible East English authorities who have already signed his petition - such as the famous King of East England, Henry IV, well-known for his epigram: "Paris is worth a mosque." I would include this, but come on - it's East England. All these peasants put together aren't worth one authentic State Department cable.

We also learn more about the notorious M. Desouche:

François Marcel Desouchitsyne is a [East English] blogger and dissident, author of A Day of Lawrence Moucharovitch Archipelago and salads. In 2015, he was sentenced to eight years in rehabilitation in the death camps of tolerance for "business information", after setting out on his blog policy Martine Aubropovitch "Titans". In a post intercepted by the Halde, François Desouchitsyne criticized the "génialissime Marshal, best friend of mankind" (according to official qualifiers) alliance with Joseph Sarkopovitch purges and so-called "positive" conducted as part of the operation "Tolerance immutable."

His novels The Last Celt and The Pavilion Jounaleuh and the twelfth volume of his historical epic on the media, Mud Bouge, appear in Asia and won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2020, it will reward that after being expelled from UERSS. His life becomes a permanent conspiracy to steal the right to inform the hunt despite more diligent of the Ministry of Love, and convicts of Chicha.

In 2024, when he is wanted in the case of small tubes Caribbean Myrha the street, it is hosted by a Sanglierovitch. He missed being assassinated December 25, 2024 by a real bearded / false Santa Claus. One of his closest colleagues, Robinovitch, narrowly escaped an assassination committed by the past participle of the Truands Grammar aboard a Zeppelin steam en route to Tibet. The attack is a serious injury: Bernard Pivot, who was drinking quietly in a chamomile 10 000 km away. Appeared in 2027 in Shanghai Archipelago salads, extensive book outlining the nature of the media and unambiguous written between 2014 and 2017 on tiny sausage skins, one to one hidden in bins geraniums. In short, a life "entirely devoted to the service of Hate" in the words of the generous free Moucharovitch Laurent.

This material, as we see, is becoming extremely obscure. But no less disturbing:

The heroic little finger is then shown in a relic in the House of Martyrs intolerance. A wreath was laid before the Good bucket in memory of the illustrious Appendix promoted to the Legion of Honor posthumously. Minute of silence in schools. Flags at half mast. National mourning. Pinot at the bedside of proud, "father" of the hero, Martine Aubropovitch "Titine" barely hold back her tears. It declared war on the small Caribbean puddings "symbols of hatred."

Sniffing the scrambles, the Council is not representative of blacks in [East England] and elsewhere denounced him as "an orgy of hatred Islamophobic" but is quick to warn against any "stigma small tubes Caribbean." As vice alas: a misunderstanding, two thousand small West Indian were killed in pogroms anti-rolls following a fatwa. "It's nerd 'comment on the GG on RMC who is responsible for Desouchitsyne does, however, no doubt in the tragic day of April 12 which saw the Appendix fall in battle. And Claude Askolobels on Radio One added, "the ogre is Desouchitsyne demiurgic of hatred." Titin, she swears on the nail of St. Atrial to get your hands on "Desouchitsyne monster." April 25, the overwhelming evidence is found in the cave of suspect guilty.

There is more. Read it. Or try. If you know the East English dialect, somehow (this is a red flag, so be sure to mask your IP) you could even translate in the comments section.

But finally, the colored sugar itself concurs, even more bravely, in M. Derville's comments:

Hello Master, I agree with you Fdesouche must be closed, this site is a real misère.J did it thousands of copies-screen that I am at your disposal if you were going to process (I have blackened the comments written by my brothers for the sake of caution because frankly that I approve, they do not go by halves, and this could be detrimental to your action).

I am Honorary President of Truands of grammar, I applied to be President but the officers evicted me because I can not read or write. I got the post of Honorary President through him who wields the best grammar and sign the documents of the association of a sticker or it is written, 1,2,3 live Algeria, he had thought sign of a cross but it was strictly forbidden by the Imam. We were sore after that I had to make me do a cerclage of the anus and this is thanks to the fact that I pay all the money remaining on benefits (the rest is my man who sent them to countries where we have built a villa with pool all with a few white slaves).

It's okay for the money because all Christian charities cater to the daily filling our refrigerator and clothing for the whole family with clothes, the rest are my little angels that are in the street "fell from a truck" as they say.

I'm 24, I'm black, forcibly married at the age of 12, without qualifications, unemployed mother of 14 cherubim that happiness! that made my apartment a beautiful branch of local African and traffic is prohibited in [East England] (I wonder why), a 7 rooms paid by the CIF (my third co-wife pays the residual is 1 euro per month). My little angels or détraquent burn every day lifts (among others) that are not quite luxurious for the building they are right but I'm following myself obliged to wrestle the 10 flights of stairs to climb the huge packages containing herbs from North Africa.

When I too rather than the garbage disposal is clogged, I send the oil from the fryer through the window the other day I even almost missed a small cheese-white under-dog, fortunately it disappeared from the neighborhood with his family, anyway the car his father had gone up in smoke, this poor fool than to enjoy the preferred benefits for a time go to the factory on foot, good riddance it is much better between us.

My dear man, a fervent believer, shows me every day how much he loves me, it strikes me that I am authorized by religious bruised from Monday to Sunday and it serves me, there is on Friday that I escaped because he will attend to their spiritual obligations without which he would burn in hell instead of being able to please the penis by 72 virgins. For Mother's Day he gave me two dozen mops I've made a dress, as well as my neighbors are jealous.

I am very fulfilled in my life, the only downside of these are crap Fdesouche they are the real culprits, as it is said everywhere that their racist like all of the extreme right are responsible for the massacre in Oslo small innocent children, supervised by pro-Palestinian-playing innocently in the war (I saw it on the other unspeakable cloth Net Bivouac-ID) with a dirt Christian who is also the Masonic lodge and anti -musumans.

Because of this pest that eats pork and drinks wine, we find it hard to apply the commandments of our great God and our beloved prophet, it is imperative to destroy the nest anti-secular by any means. If you need help with logistics, you can count on my little angels we have a well stocked arsenal stashed in the corner of the madrassa.

No, I have exaggerated nothing, any more than you. Please put a cross where I have to vote.

Please put a cross where I have to vote! Or would that be sacrilegious? After all, Paris is worth a mosque...

105 Comments:

The original petition http://maitrederville.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/petition-pour-la-fermeture-de-fdesouche/ is full of puns on cultural references. Where an illiterate member of the underclass would produce rap to show off his wit, an educated person with a large culture, knowledge of history, way too much interest in French politics, and indignation galore stemming from utter powerlessness wrote this text.

I don't have time to do justice to this piece, which would requires pages of notes. I don't know that I'd want to remain in prolonged contact with that much bitterness either.

One small example: what Google translates literally as "under-dog", is in French "sous-chien". A more semantically-preserving translation would be "less than dog" (a dog being an impure animal in islam). The word is pronounced the same as "souchien", a derivative of "français de souche", i.e. ethnic French, from which the blog the censorship of which the Establishment is calling for incidentally puns its name, fdesouche.com. I don't know who invented this foul name "less than a dog" but it has caught on amongst muslim arabs to designate members of the population they are replacing.

Yet Another East Englandian reader here - how many frog-eating UR readers are there? Though I do read more English-language stuff than "réacosphère" (I don't really believe in the Islamisation of Europe, the numbers aren't that alarming, and Western culture is more virulent).

The puns on cultural references Faré mentions also include clever parodies on the names of newspapers, e.g., "L'immonde" (Le Monde); "Le Nouvel Obscurateur" (Le Nouvel Observateur); "L'innanité" (L'Humanité, the communist paper - hence the slogan "God save Staline. Please!); and "Le Livarot" (Rivarol). The slogan of the last, "Information d'Origine Contrôlée," alludes to the French system of wine labelling, "appellation d'origine contrôlée." Rivarol is the journal of the "respectable" French right, rather like the Spectator in Britain, or National Review here.

The piece is a tour-de-force of Menippean satire, in its word-play very much in the spirit of Rabelais, but in its pessimism much closer to that of Ambrose Bierce. Forget Google translation; you need to resurrect Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty to do a proper job of it.

You are assuming that the opposition and persuadable middle will behave rationally.

Well, Geert Wilders Freedom Party is not only sitting in a coalition government in the Netherlands right now but he forced his parliamentary coalition partners to cut non-EU (read non-white and Muslim) immigration by 50%, so I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet simply because the TSA now finally has an excuse to "probe" and strip search the Swedish bikini team thanks to a one in a trillion Norwegian terrorist.

Btw, regarding Moldbug's request for converting the young Komosols instead of shooting them, MM is going to need a different "reactionary" demographic to appeal to them because the current Odin worhsipping alternative right/inferior reich omega males are not going to appeal to young, high IQ, white guys.

We need more of the Republican Smart Fraction, not rejects from skinhead gangs.

With a better memory, you would know that the smart fraction threshold's an abyssal ~108; your spleen for the dubious 'Odin' -- who in point of fact exchanged one eye for knowledge -- has little to do with the effulgent meterstick of IQ.

Caring means sharing, nigga. Maybe you should be looking for square dealers, not a crack sedan chair crew.

"[...] working class voters don’t want new programs from the government. They don’t trust the government and they feel betrayed by the government. What they want is direct, crude protection from labor market competition. Voters favor higher taxes on the rich and defense of the social safety net, but they crave crackdowns on immigration and the importation of foreign-made goods. This, after all, is not a question of (possibly non-credible) policy promises but of baseline values, willingness to prioritize the interests of middle class Americans (or Finns, Dutchmen, etc.) over those of sundry Mexican and Arab interlopers or Chinese or Indian peasants. People see high-level progressive politicians are part of the same deracinated global elite that runs the big firms and the major conservative parties. Under the circumstances, why trust your tax dollars to them?"Matthew Yglesias makes the argument against himself.

An immediate cause of the French revolution was a financial crisis; the state was nearing bankruptcy because of France’s financial obligations stemming from involvement in the Seven Years War and its participation in the American Revolutionary War.

The French radicals also were distinctly inspired by the visible success of republicanism and Enlightenment rationalism in the new world. If they hadn't had that example to point to as proof that what they were aiming for was possible, things might have gone very differently.

"Sounds like your way of saying, "There aren't enough Jews in control in the hard right. There are too many uppity goys in the hard right who might be 'problematic' down the line.""

Jews make up >50% of the population of whites with IQs over 150. This is the simple logic of the normal distribution. Walk into a top-tier physics or CS graduate program and count the proportion of whites who are Jewish.

If any political movement is to succeed it must include a significant proportion of the highly intelligent. Otherwise it's nothing but a bunch of street thugs who are going to get co-opted and used by another political faction which does have a bunch of smart guys.

If you are a reactionary you accept a hierarchical society. That means accepting that people will be dominated by their genetic superiors. When a reactionary sees group A own and control a society to a significantly higher proportion than group B, he doesn't cite injustice. He celebrates that group B has such a wise and superior group A to shepard and guide it.

Given the modern distribution of IQ, talent and wealth there is no way to be a reactionary and reject the need for a very large section of Western society to be owned and controlled by those of Jewish descent.

By definition a reactionary must accept that Jews are genetically superior to gentiles, and therefore have the right to a much more prominent position in society.

Jews make up >50% of the population of whites with IQs over 150. This is the simple logic of the normal distribution.

You must not be Jewish because you're apparently too dumb to do math.

The subset of the Jewish population with higher average IQ than whites is Ashkenazi, who number around 10 million. The white population is vastly greater than 10 million and as a result dominates the ranks of over 150 IQs.

there are way more ashkenazi in america than in israel -- 90% of american jews are ashkenazi.

the reduction of "jews" to israel is stupid, and clearly the product of inferior closeted "white nationalist" bullshit. (c'mon, use the word "zionist," you're dying to.) most american jews, the successful ones, especially, don't give a shit about israel, or if they do, it's in the manner of doing philanthropy work for a museum; it's something to keep the wife busy and an opportunity for political networking.

DR is right, and it's funny: the reactionary dream of "royalist" timocracy so coveted by y'all could only logically be truly fulfilled by the jews -- the objective master race. a tiny percentage of the world's population that controls the most important functions of the bourgeois state (finance) and is almost unanimously responsible for all the major scientific advances of the last century.

and most important, has immediate national self-identification. which is of course the major stumbling block for present-day non-jewish reactionaries: you can't stand each other, and have no reliable method of id'ing each other. you're all isolated in a post-national, post-"ideological" world.

only the jews could rule. and of course they already do, so don't need to do it openly

When a reactionary sees group A own and control a society to a significantly higher proportion than group B, he doesn't cite injustice. He celebrates that group B has such a wise and superior group A to shepard and guide it.

Why should group A and group B share the same society in the first place?

How is mere ownership and control a sign of good and superior leadership and wisdom? The Bolsheviks were able to "own and control a society". Did this fact imply that the Bolsheviks were a wise and superior group and that the Soviet masses should have celebrated for its leadership and guidance?

Why not leave it to experimentation so we can really find out? Why not have some societies with group A, and others free of group A, and isolate the societies, and then see how things turn out? After all, this is really how the Soviet masses and the rest of the world found out that those who owned and controlled the Soviet Union really weren't such a wise and superior group. If there weren't other societies with different leadership, they might have never found out. They really might have believed that the CPSU were a wise and superior group that they should be thankful for.

I'm so glad UR's comments have become ground zero for autistic nerds squabbling about the "superiority of jews". I'm sure none of the people that post on reactionary websites are "master of the universe" types to start with, but this is just pathetic.

But speaking as a demi-jew, it seems pretty obvious that if your goal is to angle for a more hospitable environment for jews in the "Reactionary-sphere" (such as it is) spouting off on the "superiority of the jews" is probably the worst possible way to do it.

Trying to get your fellow reactionaries (I am not one) to bow down and worship you for your ethnicity is just about the most pathetic and self-defeating things possible.

the reduction of "jews" to israel is stupid, and clearly the product of inferior closeted "white nationalist" bullshit.

Who is reducing Jews to Israel?

Jews in Israel have an average IQ lower than many countries.

The Jews in and out of Israel that have higher average IQ, the Ashkenazim, only have a population of about 10 million. They're greatly outnumbered by whites. There are way more whites with high IQ than Ashkenazi. So DR is wrong.

the reactionary dream of "royalist" timocracy so coveted by y'all

You're confused. You're thinking of monarchy fetishists.

a tiny percentage of the world's population that controls the most important functions of the bourgeois state (finance)

They also dominate certain, um, not very respectable activities. What should we make of that?

Also, acquiring and maintaining control of something only really tells you that you're good at acquiring and maintaining control of something. Do you really want to argue that their financial leadership has been good?

almost unanimously responsible for all the major scientific advances of the last century.

Not only is this false, but any objective accounting of contribution has to take into account negative contributions. You have to add and subtract, credit and debit. When you consider their negative contributions, they've set back certain fields decades. They're deep in the red.

and most important, has immediate national self-identification. which is of course the major stumbling block for present-day non-jewish reactionaries: you can't stand each other, and have no reliable method of id'ing each other. you're all isolated in a post-national, post-"ideological" world.

There's no question that the contemporary cosmopolitan, globalist environment advantages Jews relative to us. Such an environment doesn't impede national self-identification for international nations as much as it does for nations more accustomed to homogeneous environments of territorial integrity. But this gets to the heart of the matter. This is a fundamental difference, conflict between us. This environment is what we react against. Jewish "reactionaries" are mainly trying to consolidate their gains in power and control made over the past few generations. They don't necessarily want to give up the cosmopolitan environment and regime that has enthralled the nations. They don't necessarily want the nations to be free.

"Jews make up >50% of the population of whites with IQs over 150. This is the simple logic of the normal distribution. Walk into a top-tier physics or CS graduate program and count the proportion of whites who are Jewish."

Exactly wrong. Jewish IQ is high due to the verbal component, not the numerical. Not only that I have some direct contact with a pretty high level university physics degree proram; Jews are not overrepresented, neither in the faculty nor the students. They are not absent either - but it's somewhere on the order of 5-10%, not 50%.

Okay first of all I'm not Jewish. Not a single drop. I just can't stand white trash, of which 99% of the anti-semites in the reacto-sphere are. Objectively speaking my race is far inferior to the Jews, East Asians and upper-cast South Asians. There is no debate about this. That doesn't mean I am, but my race most certainly is. Whites suck compared to them, hence the reason >75% of the people I associate with are Asian or Jewish.

Second of all, yes I did graduate from with a CS program from a top ivy league school, and took a lot of math and physics classes. The distribution of students in those departments is about 35% East Asian, 30% South Asian, 20% whites with at least some Jewish heritage, 15% gentile whites.

Believe it or not anti-semites, you can't just tell a Jewish person by looking at them. Many many people are of Jewish descent and don't practice or have any cultural relation to Judaism. Probably at least 50% of Jews in America. It's not like if you just walked into a classroom and looked around you'd be able to pick out the Jews.

Just for those who don't know how math works, Ashkenazi Jews have at least 1 standard deviation higher IQ than gentiles. If you use an IQ scale with mean 100 and std. dev. of 10, then 150 represents a +5 sigma realization for a gentile and a +4 sigma realization for a Jew. Meaning 1 out 3.5 million whites will realize there, and 1 out of 31,000 Jews will realize there.

Proportionally 110 times more Jews will hit 150 IQ than gentiles. So even if Jews make up only 4% of the white population than they'll still out number gentiles at 150 IQ four to one.

When I graduated I took a job at a major quant hedge fund. Anyone would recognize them as being one of the most successful, selective and secretive quant funds ever. Getting hired at this fund or one of the handful of equivalent ones was easily one of the most prestigious and hard to obtain jobs out of school my already top-tier university.

Think of what attending an ivy league school is to the common man, working for one of these funds is like that to the ivy league population. Out of 20 people in my starting class at the firm I was the only non-Jewish white.

So yes I have had my fair share of exposure to masters of the universes, self-made billionaires and insanely intelligent geniuses (my first boss finished his PhD in Mathematics at a tier one university at the age of 21).

And what I can tell you is that the difference between this group, which gentile whites make up a very small part, and the white trash I grew up and went to high school with is night and day. At least equivalent if not greater to the difference between ghetto blacks and middle class whites.

Is there anyone here who seriously thinks that if the franchise was restricted to Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians and upper-caste South Asians that the country wouldn't immensely improve immediately? If you disagree you are clearly delusionally racist.

I just can't stand white trash, of which 99% of the anti-semites in the reacto-sphere are.

In that case, what's the problem? We "white trash" and you (Jews and goys who want to live with Jews) are in agreement. We can't stand each other and want to live apart from each other. We can have Jew-free states, and you can have white trash-free states.

Believe it or not anti-semites, you can't just tell a Jewish person by looking at them.

You can. And in any case genetic identification technologies that analyze and recognize phenotypes will only get better.

Just for those who don't know how math works, Ashkenazi Jews have at least 1 standard deviation higher IQ than gentiles.

Just for those who care about facts, Ashkenazim haven't been conclusively shown to "have at least 1 standard deviation higher IQ" than whites. 1 SD higher is being very generous. Older studies showed 0.75 to 1.0 SD higher, more recent studies show only 0.5 SD higher.

Aslo, what about Israel? Israel has an average IQ lower than many population groups. Should any of these other population groups take over Israel and enslave, eliminate, or replace the Israelis since they have higher IQ?

Is there anyone here who seriously thinks that if the franchise was restricted to Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians and upper-caste South Asians that the country wouldn't immensely improve immediately? If you disagree you are clearly delusionally racist.

These people already have disproportionately more power than us "white trash". Do you think they've done a good job? Do you think they'd do even better with even more power? In any case, why do we have to live with these people in the first place, let alone be ruled by them?

Quant hedge funds are not centers of mathematical skill, they are centers of mathematical game-playing and obfuscation. They have added $0.00 to American productivity, what they do instead is shift around money other people made and skim off the top. I am not going to worry about the opinion of someone who confuses that with useful physics.

Also as a general rule I am not going to worry much about the opinion who starts off by explaining how much he despises his own kind. You're perfectly free to take that position and act on it, but aren't allowed to then insist that your thought process is unbiased.

Meanwhile, I again point out that the average Jewish IQ advantage is much stronger on the verbal side than the numerical side. That's known.

"Is there anyone here who seriously thinks that if the franchise was restricted to Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians and upper-caste South Asians that the country wouldn't immensely improve immediately? If you disagree you are clearly delusionally racist."

Hahaha ok. What would happen is that it would instantly become an overt institutionalized spoils system - because "obviously" those groups "deserve" the best - and the acceleration of the country built by non-Ashkenazi, non-Orientals, and non-subcontinentals into a vortex of collapse would drastically accelerate. That these groups have high IQs does not mean that they always do the right thing, or that they understand what is going on better than everyone else.

I'm amused at how many material reductionists at this blog (including MM himself) put too much weight on inspiration, intellectuals, and philosophical ideals as explanations for historical events (and, no, Moldbug, Communist intellectuals have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism because Islam has been a terrorizing religion for 1400 years.)

To say the French Revolution was caused by the inspiration the Jacobins felt towards the American War of Independence is ludicrous.

If "inspiration" was the culprit behind The Terror's guillotines, then I could blame the Revolution on just about anything.

The Jacobins took inspiration not only from the America's, but also from ancient Greece (the original "Whig" state) and the Roman Republic because both were democratic. The Jacobins also took inspiration from the example of democratic Switzerland.

Taking the logic of Moldbug, josh, and Rollory, Switzerland, ancient Greece, and Rome are all as much or more guilty of the French Revolution than the United States was.

But would any of you want to carry your "inspiration" argument to it's logical conclusion?

While the Jews are of course genetically white, my point was the Odin-worshiping right (such as it exists) and WNs in general attracts almost no high IQ white gentiles, and, is in fact much more likely to lose ordinary white conservative gentiles than gain them.

When not working for International Zionism, I actually spend quite a bit of time around white male goyim, and I can assure you that none of them (Christian or atheist/agnostic) would find a political movement that supports exterminating baby Jesus (Jesus, FYI, was a JEW! Which means that European civiization was largely built by a JOOOOO religious sect) and replacing him with Thor/Odin and Siegfried, the Son.

most american jews, the successful ones, especially, don't give a shit about israel,

Actually, most Jews do care about Israel.

The reason Israel has not been a factor in Jewish politics is because there has historically been little difference between Republican and Democrat policy on Israel, at least before Obama. What fundamental differences were there exactly between George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton in terms of their pro-Palestinian foreign policies?

Neopaganism isn't my schtick but de Benoist is a pretty sharp guy. Stephen McNallen seems like a normal guy rather than a rahowa caricature.

They're the exception to the rule.

On balance, there every reason to believe that the average Odinist member of the alternative-right/inferior reich, if seen in real life, would repel far more white gentile conservatives than they would attract.

Does anyone know any mainstream Republican in their non-cyber lives who would be attracted to a movement led Thor worshippers/baby Jesus exterminators?

Republicans are almost entirely useless.

They're not useless when the GOP smart fraction wants to fight.

The Republican Smart Fraction of libertarians and preppies/yuppies was effective at blocking Obama from raising taxes during the budget debate.

If the Smart Fraction could be brought over to HBD, we would be in business, but the low IQ white nationalists and alt-righters/Jesus exterminators are not going to get the job done.

Can you be more specific about the "Republican Smart Fraction"? What exactly is it that you are trying to sell here?

August 2, 2011 8:03 AM

By "Republican Smart Fraction" I'm referring to the libertarian, business minded readers and commenters of the Wall Street Journal (and related pro-GOP outlets) and not the writers of the Wall Street Journal.

Attracting the WSJ's readership, not it's columnists, is what HBD should be gunning for.

But this will require the vulgar paleoconservatives, buchananites, alt-righters, and other reactosphere omega males to leave HBD and make way for the original HBD demographic, which largely consisted of younger white libertarians and yuppies.

I'm not sure why that's relevant to people concerned with genetically non-Jewish whites. They're by definition not genetically non-Jewish whites.

When not working for International Zionism, I actually spend quite a bit of time around white male goyim, and I can assure you that none of them (Christian or atheist/agnostic) would find a political movement that supports exterminating baby Jesus (Jesus, FYI, was a JEW! Which means that European civiization was largely built by a JOOOOO religious sect) and replacing him with Thor/Odin and Siegfried, the Son.

I also spend quite a bit of time around white male goyim who, while they don't want to exterminate baby Jesus or replace him with "Thor/Odin and Siegfried", definitely do want to live in Jew-free states. So like I said above, what's the problem? We're in agreement. We want to live without Jews, and you and your goyim buddies can't or don't want to live without them. We can't stand each other so we can live apart from each other. We white trash can have Jew-free states, and you can have white trash-free states.

Nothing in this post had anything to do with Jews, so (naturally) a bunch of Jewish Supremacists

Excuse me, but the anti-semites were the ones who brought up the subject of Jews, and the Jews (or Jew controlled) merely responded to the usual nonsense about cryptic Jewish motivations that are supposedly antagonistic to those of elite gentiles.

I'm not sure why that's relevant to people concerned with genetically non-Jewish whites.

If Jews are white, then I would expect the White Nationalists to also support the Jews just as they support the Scandinavians, who are a subgroup of whites.

But we're not feeling the love, which is sad considering the Jews built the foundations of European civilization via Christianity.

TI also spend quite a bit of time around white male goyim who, while they don't want to exterminate baby Jesus or replace him with "Thor/Odin and Siegfried", definitely do want to live in Jew-free states.

I've never met any goyim who want to live in Jew free states.

And why are you posting so much on a Jew controlled blog if you want to spend as much time away from Jews as possible (which is your great loss).

the usual nonsense about cryptic Jewish motivations that are supposedly antagonistic to those of elite gentiles.

Since we hold different hypotheses on this issue of human ecology, we can test our hypotheses, our beliefs about it rather than debating endlessly about it. We can have Jew-free states and white trash-free states run by the Jewish-gentile elite. We can see how they turn out. What are you afraid of? The Jews and the gentile elite are so smart and superior to us white trash and they'll be able to show to all observers of this experiment how inferior us white trash are.

If Jews are white, then I would expect the White Nationalists to also support the Jews just as they support the Scandinavians, who are a subgroup of whites.

I don't know why WNs who are concerned with genetically non-Jewish whites would support Jews as they would Scandinavians.

But we're not feeling the love, which is sad considering the Jews built the foundations of European civilization via Christianity.

Moldbug says that Leftism comes from Christianity. Do you believe that Jews are ultimately responsible for Leftism?

I've never met any goyim who want to live in Jew free states.

I don't tell Jews what I really think. Neither do the other goyim I know that share my views.

The White Nationalists really are going to have to go if HBD is going to get to work.

We're trying to go. You're trying to force your beliefs on us. We're not trying to impose our beliefs and our type of state on you.

Most of them have some sort of paranoid delusions that they need to work out with themselves in their mother's basement.

Until the WNs/paleocons/alt-righters get their heads straightened out, they're going to continue to runoff Smart Fraction Republicans and libertarians with their Thor/Siegfried rantings.

We don't care about "Smart Fraction Republicans and libertarians". We're not trying to impose our beliefs and state on them. They can do whatever they want. What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of a bunch of paranoid losers who simply want to live free and independently in the kind of state they see fit? Since they're so stupid and inferior, they're little independent living experiment will show to all the world how stupid and inferior they are, and how great Jewish and elite gentile leadership is.

If you don't like Jews, why don't you do us a favor and get off this Jew enriched blog?

Like I said, we can't stand each other and want to live apart from each other. What is so complicated about this? What's so controversial about it? Why can't we have Jew-free states while you have white trash-free Jewish and gentile states? Why don't you support this? Why do you want to impose your Jewish-gentile elite HBD dictatorship on us? We're just stupid, paranoid, inferior, conspiracy theorist losers.

who the fuck is proud of being "white trash"? is your mutilated-animal pathos supposed to impress us?

Commenter "DR" used the term to refer to us above, and I continued using it out of convenience. You can call us whatever you want.

and we wouldn't be the "elite" if we didn't dominate you, and map your existence from birth to death as a giant superfluous consumption arc, would we?

Exactly. Can you please explain this to "The Undiscovered Jew"? Tell him how stupid and inferior we are, and how the only thing Jew-free states and white trash-free states are going to demonstrate to the external observer is just how stupid and inferior we are, and how superior Jews are.

"Charles Murray uses citation analysis to account for “human accomplishment” in his book by that name. However he failed to take into account the fundamentally important accomplishment: negative numbers. He therefore assigns a positive value for citations which might be best viewed as a negation of human accomplishment. Examples of such negative accomplishments might be such works as ”Das Kapital” [Marx] (which set political economy back a century), ”Civilization and its Disconents” [Freud] (which set psychology back a century), ”Anthropology and Modern Life” [Boas] (which set sociology back a century) and ”The Genetic Basis for Evolution Change” [Lewontin] (which set human ecology back at least a generation). He could have avoided this fatal error of epistemology by using a truly important human accomplishment that’s over a century old: Factor analysis.

I'm trying to find a book, I think Mencius mentioned it fairly recently. It was by a German/Austrian/Viennese, I think, who later moved to the US? It was mainly autobiography, I think, and maybe the guy was a publisher?

Apparently he described pre-WW1 Germany/Austria/Vienna? in "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" sort of terms.

Mon dieu! The last time I commented here, we were still talking about a satirical essay in French. Now it has degenerated into squabbling about - what else? - the Jews! No wonder MM no longer deigns to respond to comments, or perhaps even to read them.

A though exercise demonstrating that the country would be far better if the Jewish elite and not gentile elite had run it for the past 100 years.

What is the archetypical white protestant elite institution: Harvard. A university founded hundreds of years ago by fundamentalist Calvinists in what was then lily white Boston. The stepping stone to power for 300 years for all gentile politicians, intellectuals and captains of industry.

As MM has demonstrated the elite universities (95%+ of which are enshrined in crypto-Calvinism, a decidedly gentile school of though) have run this country, and by proxy the world, for the past century.

What is the equivalent elite Jewish institution. One not merely staffed with a lot of Jews, but tarnished by the history of its roots in Protestant universalism. An institution founded by Jews, mostly run by Jews though its history, enshrined in Jewish culture and values...

Goldman Sachs

So does any one hear dispute that if Goldman Sachs rather than Harvard had run USG over the past century that things would be worse? If you seriously think USG run by Harvard is an improvement over USG run by Goldman Sachs, you can make that claim. However one thing you certainly cannot do is make that claim and simultaneously call yourself a reactionary.

For gentiles the Jewish issue is a litmus test of whether someone is a true reactionary or not. Let me explain.

The core of Reaction is the belief that power must be concentrated not distributed. If our society was to convert from Progressive Communist Democracy to Reaction tomorrow the vast majority of people would lose power, everything from losing the ability to vote to bureaucrats losing their Civil Service Act protected positions of power to journalists no longer molding the "public consciousness."

The point is if want to call yourself a reactionary then you have to be alright with accepting a 99.99% probability that you will lose power. Doesn't mean you'll lose wealth or freedom, but you will almost certainly have less power in Reaction than you do in Progress.

A reactionary therefore must by definition be willing to submit to his superiors. To relinquish power. If you are only in the reactosphere to jump on the issues that increase your power, then you're simply a democratic populist co-opting the reactosphere to get the policies you want.

This is why White Nationalism is not Reaction. Your typical WN wants to increases, not decrease, his personal power. Both the reactionary and WN want to take away the power that the Race Warlords hold. To the reactionary everyone from Jesse Jackson to democratic black alderman running vote machines to the corporate diversity officers represent one of the most terrible and corrupt examples of distributed power.

The reactionary wants to get rid of this because it is a very necessary part of concentrating power back into a single autonomous sovereign entity (be it a person or corporation).

The WN wants to eliminate this particular power distribution because he wants to transfer that power to himself and his ilk. WN is nothing more but yet another democratic populist vein, simply trying to transfer power in yet another way.

In short the reactionary is Frodo, trying to steal the ring from Sauron to destroy it. A WN is Gollum, a pathetic creature trying to rob Sauron of his ring, out of his own greed. Trust me nobody wants Gollum over Sauron, he'll be just as corrupt and a good deal more pathetic.

Hence the reason why the Jewish question is a litmus test to determine who is a true reactionary, and who is simply supporting reactionary policies for the most democratic of reasons: lust for more personal power.

The Jews are an objectively superior group to gentile whites. In Reaction they will almost certainly increase their power relative to gentile whites (i.e. the sum total of power held by Jews will increase relative to the sum total of power held by gentile whites).

If you as a gentile hear this fact and think, "Good, that's great. I want power to be held by the most worthy and talented" then you are a true reactionary.

If you hear this and it fills you with revulsion and outrage of the thought of your group losing power then you have not thrown of the shackles of progressive thinking.

Attracting the WSJ's readership, not it's columnists, is what HBD should be gunning for.

I like the sound of this. But on the hand, why should they care, they are doing fine? If some middle class WT neighborhood is being flooded with section 8s, the problem may as well be on the moon for as much as it will impact their lives. At any rate, what is preventing these people from heading on over to Sailer's?

> If you as a gentile hear this fact and think, "Good, that's great. I want power to be held by the most worthy and talented" then you are a true reactionary.

To me, power can be said to be in the worthiest hands only if and when matters are good or optimal for the development of maximum eudaimonic /virtu/ -- that means 'strength', eg artistic and philosophical ability, personal courage, scientific ability, holiness & purity, supreme romantic devotion of the sexes, and more generally a passionate and 'bracing' life, etc, combined with at least a decent level of pleasure.

I care about maximal /virtu/ most particularly in my group (Euro Gentiles)... and for the whole West (sort of including Jews, though I feel sort of neutrally about them in general, rather than warmly), and I care about same to a somewhat lesser extent for man in general. Especially other talented types such as your Japs and Chinks -- and actually Muslim types as well, I love a fair amount of their art. I certainly don't want to see Blacks maltreated, but the optimal development of Japs and Persians I would rate as somewhat more important than that of Blacks.

The highest good, theoretically, would probably be a eugenic or slow transhuman progress that lets all these groups become even better than they are now, and indeed better than all the best peoples of the past. But some reservations apply, eg this should not be pursued if it can't be pursued without considerably worsening existential risks to my people and to the human species, which threaten to end the whole show.

That's what is good. The worthy hands - from my subjective and self-interested perspective - are defined as those that fulfill this good; they can't be defined any other way. And I have my qualms about whether Jewish ascendancy will be those wise hands!

I also don't really consider Jewish freedom and development toward greater /virtu/ to be a worthier telos over my people's freedom and development. Not even when I take a universal perspective, though I am a particularist anyway and not a universalist. I don't actually consider them significantly superior: look at the canons of architecture, of painting, film, poetry, prose, classical music, etc. Jews and Gentiles are nearly equal in their artistic, philosophic, and spiritual power, a fact which is noticeably little discussed. Whereas I of course realize that Jews are far and away superior in physics and doubtless in math, and probably also bio to a lesser degree -- I'm not some preposterous liar. There is general agreement that Gentiles are also a bit more physically handsome in the face, on average. (Particularly Insular Celts IMHO, but I guess I'm sort of infatuated with one.)

On my view you are overestimating the value of IQ and physics. Of course disagreements over such value judgments are not necessarily easy to resolve.

Also, it's not abundantly clear how you define "worthy hands" for power-wielding, and you might not agree with the definition or type of definition that I've sketched.

Now, probably some gayhomofag somewhere in America will be kind of offended by my frank little spiel, but at least I set it forth dispassionately and precisely for ya.

The statement that "the core of Reaction is the belief that power must be concentrated not distributed" is highly disputable. This might have been the belief of Hobbes or of Louis XIV, but were they really reactionaries?

Absolute monarchy was a new idea in the seventeenth century, not "reaction." It was quite unlike the historic character of mediæval feudal states. to which a real reactionary would aspire. Parliamentary democracy in something like its modern form also had its beginnings in the seventeenth century. We're really dealing here with the conflict between two seventeenth-century conceptions of how the state should be governed.

And, in any event, absolute monarchy was nothing like modern-day totalitarianism in which power is genuinely concentrated and unlimited. Bourbon France and Habsburg Austria permitted their subjects many liberties that modern social democracies now deny their citizens. Moreover, they were countries in which the rule of law prevailed, with regular courts and due process - not "telephone justice," as under the former Soviet Union. MM has never been an apologist for totalitarianism.

Please note I don't hold Gentiles to be innocent of contributing to the considerable hatred between Jews and Gentiles. Far from it. I realize that extremely severe things happened to Ashkenazim in the 1600s (or whatever) in Ukraine and Poland -- and I've mentioned it before here and on three other blogs.

For those that don't know, basically Jews had considerably higher fitness than the autochthonous Slavs (in the absence of violence anyway) and their population tended to increase, and they tended to accumulate more and more power over Ukraine and Poland. So the Slavs of those lands mass murdered something on the very approximate order of half(?) the Ashkenazi population of Europe (which is to say, of the world).

What happened was basically natural to human beings, which we know to be animals. I don't really expect the Slavs to just blithely lose thier country. At the same time, obviously, it was extremely horrible, and I don't even want to envision it.

And I certainly don't think Jews of say 1800 should have just accepted the fact philosophically, because it's sociobiology. That would be ridiculous and it's certainly not how I would feel.

Obviously this memory had something significant to do with Jewish involvement in October 1917 - duh.

> At any rate, what is preventing these people from heading on over to Sailer's?

Gossamer fetters that seem like nothing in retrospect.

Sailer seems extremely genial to you and me, but I remember how scandalized I was when I first read him. I was in a tumult, and could have easily just 'decided' at one point or another that he was all lies. This even though I had strong ideals of scientific objectivity, and had been perusing all the thoughtcrimes of Nietzsche for a decade. And considered myself, as of 18 months prior, libertarian not left.

By moving people one millimeter you get them started. One mm is truly pointless per se, but many of them will later go farther. When you try to yank them like 20 mm, they dig in their heels and don't move at all.

Other than being super-mild, though, there's another very different way which is to be over-the-top farcical.

see, a nice discussion of the fitness of jews turns into a nice discussion of racial/mimetic political-power strategy -- once the white trash is taken out.

as DR so insightfully puts it, WNs are a democratic/populist (mickey-mouse) cult of violence. they, as the saying goes, are looking for a leader. too bad they're such little pussies. most smart people only encounter them when getting their cars repaired or observing porn -- but i, ashkenazi, with 12 years of martial-arts experience, can tell you they're complete wannabees. if you want to see what a real cult of violence feels like, get into a fight with a balkan or a slav or, for that matter, a dark south american. someone from a strongman society, countries run by intelligent gangsters encircled by the most adept at physical violence (and who are usually excellent fighters themselves)

the comments above about the discrepancy between jewish verbal or math ability are silly. jews excel at code, and both language and math are code, or rather, encodable.

any self-styled reactionary would have to read leo strauss, whose work is fundamentally about the transmission of the properly (hellenistic-judaic) philosophical consciousness into political power, via encoded ("esoteric") power strategies

> The WN wants to eliminate this particular power distribution because he wants to transfer that power to himself and his ilk. WN is nothing more but yet another democratic populist vein, simply trying to transfer power in yet another way.

The Reconquista of Spain was demotic by these lights. Everyone should have just submitted to Muslim power superiority. Am I doing something fallacious by saying that?

WNs like me are partly particularist and partly universalist. So were the Spaniards, that's why they didn't just submit to another race. They were probably somewhat more particularist -- under those rough malthusian circumstances -- than I've ever been.

Or do you have grounds for declining to define the Muslims as superior during their rule in Spain? Perhaps such grounds exist. But they were superior at the time, and the Spaniards wanted to, in your words, transfer their power to themselves.

This racial particularism is not usually at the level of intensity and prominence and clarity that it reached in 19th C Europe. But it is still a human universal. Of course you are entirely free to not like it, but I don't think you can just finish the job by saying "it's demotic, its populist and anti-elite or anti-monarchial".

(In fact you may have to prove that racial particularism is a bad thing, from first principles...)

After all the native Spanish had their own elite and their own monarch whom they restored to monarchial rule over Spain, though they were against the Muslim elite and monarch. And a part-particularist like me is hierarchical... 'feudal' in thinking that different classes have different sets of obligations and rights. I'm rabidly "populist", though, anytime an elite is in the midst of selling out its own ethny, own race. Especially when that race is ME. But I do think it's wrong in principle, as well. I think the ethnostate is good, the ethno-government of the ethnostate is good to the society because of natural affection -- stemming from dilute familiality. Co-ethnics are good to each other.

And when an ethny is put under foreign empire -- an arrangement which is sub-ideal at least /for them/ if not necessarily for the world in general -- then the best thing is that the ethny be allowed to survive, and to function as a subordinate political unit and organon... a subordinate, but whole and healthy society.

For example, Chechnya, and many other Russian possessions. The Chechans might not get sovereignty or a big cut of the oil under their homeland -- but New Russia like Imperial Russia and I assume post-barbarossa USSR all let little nations at least have life and community and pride. In contrast to what pre-barbarossa USSR did with these nations.

In contrast, you know, Jews try to control the whole West, which is far too much for them to control without all kinds of guilt-trip mindwar, importing foreign races in enormous numbers causing total chaos and threatening Gentiles' racial continuity (ie threatening to considerably admix them, which in some sense is to genocide them). It's not a happy situation where Gentiles can live as a subject, yet safe, whole, and proud people that has a future. And it basically seems pretty insane and seems like it might be mostly a maladaptive perserveration of malthusian behavior in a non-malthusian world. For example, I would be deliriously happy for Jews to take 1/3 of the USA and Canada as a gigantic fucking homeland, and leave all the other Euro territories forever. They could import young guestworkers from wherever they want and send every last one of them back after a 5-year period. There would be no miserable 'slave morality' mindwar going on to guilt trip them for doing so.

Nothing would make me happier. In comparison, some sort of a repeat of October 1917 through 1945 (and onward in mindwar orgies to 2011) is not real attractive. Is that, somehow, attractive? I'd rather smoke grass in my remaining 2/3 of North America, read, paint, philosophize, smoke more before going to bed with a girl, perhaps a wife. If I need to get some kind of Ernst Jünger "danger fix" or some kind of jolt of suffering or even terror -- which, yes, I think can be pretty seriously important for maximizing the value of life, for certain people, at certain times, at certain levels -- why then I'll climb a fucking dangerous mountain, or do snowboard tricks, possibly on discomfiting amounts of acid or mushrooms: I don't really need anything from a 1917-45 death struggle that I can't get by other means.

Know what I'm sayin, my nigger? Basically, am I the only sane one? AM I THE OOONLY SAAAAANE ONE ~+//LEFT//+~ ???????????

DR: some valid ideas about concentration of power, but you should note that power can be easily distributed rationalistically (via market economics and legality) in a "democratic" society but can not be concentrated in an authoritarian one by these means. i personally don't know how much auctoritas james simons possesses, but i know that no strong person would listen to him simply on the premise that he knows how certain surfaces interact in the 8th dimension, or how to make a lot of money in a gamed, corrupted economic order.

that goldman sachs represents a repository of superior intelligence is without question; but someone with superior intelligence might want to argue that it also represents the apex of corruption of the jewish philosophic consciousness -- a self-alienated jewish power cult

it's hilarious to me the way people here backpedal from the implications of reactionary politics. certainly, reaction involves concentration of power; certainly, concentration of power involves violence. the issue is not between "if" a reactionary state is a violent concentration of power or not, but the distinction between rationalist and irrationalist dictatorship.

the mention of absolutism as a desirable order and goal of reaction is ... fucking ludicrous. it was a transitional epoch -- the reintroduction of roman law into europe. nowhere is the collective misreading of marx (and hobbes) more apparent than when people misunderstand this era -- an era categorized entirely by violent (and, as it turns out, quickly synthesized) contradictions. the absolutist state IS the gestating modern liberal-constitutional state.

> Afterall, we, the Jews did convert you to the JEWISH sect known as Christianity, and the Europeans have prospered since they adopted JUDEO-Christian morality and ethics.

Oh my flipping heaven... yeah, we've really prospered, man we've just been ecstatic as compared to those two mud puddles Greece and Rome - so THANKS, and thanks again for capitalizing your own ethnonym... charming.

That severely damaged (probably by Jewish perfidy) text is 100% European, thank you for asking... And nothing else under the sun really compares so well to your woggic piece de resistance, 'Canticles' - //the// benchmark, the greatest book ever written... it's basically about this amazing Jewish chick and how sweet and sensitive and intuitive she is, ummm, I don't want to get in trouble - although some have claimed there's this "hidden level of meaning" - wouldn't put it past y'all, knowing you as I do.

Which I do; do you realize I dated this Jewish broad a long time ago... That probably no one ever knew me better? Are you fully cognizant of the fact that 'it is the duty of every man to marry, and so to become known'? Do you know that yet, you free spirits?

That shit may have some hidden metaphors as well. It only took Europe sixteen centuries to get back to that level, after we were so fortunate as to join in on your little spiritual adventure of an intriguingly solitary god with a suspiciously large number of secret names.

Still... you know what else is sort of weird about the great god Wotan - besides the fact that he is so mysterious?

Wait, one little thing first - how many idiot leftists out there have I just converted with this one post? Hello?

just kidding. I can't really read at the mo, I spent too much energy. but as for 'dialectical'...

yeah, I'm populist relative to this situation, elitist relative to this other situation. im ethnonationalist but if some particular ethnonationalist movement is going to cause huge risks to say the larger balance of power, then it might be better (at least from the universal or global perspective) to have a compromise that basically accepts the foreign imperium in exchange for something.

people usually want to put a taxonomic label, a description or definition, onto a historical event... or onto a political-philosophical position (or mere intuition).... but typically the label only half-sticks.

it really helps to define something crisply from first principles... like define elitism or decentralism or good/bad in a way that cleanly handles ALL cases from history. +yes+ the change produced by this event was elitist, or +no+ it was counter-elitist. or you try allowing it to have components of both; things may or may not end up too complex that way.

but in order to do that, you kind of need an ontology of what entities you think (saliently) exist, and which entities you consider fatuous or just unimportant. without the ontology you dont know what ought to be included or excluded from a definition.

I'm not in the least surprised that Jews are disfiguring the tenets, or rather sentiments, of true reaction to fit their interests and please their vanity.

Reaction isn't an abstract Plantonic monarchical ideology of 'rule by merit' where merit is defined according to technocratic efficiency, but loyalty to particular men and places. I'm (Australian actually) but of the usual West/Euro origin by descent and my loyalty therefore is to high-born native leaders - whatever their capacity - not supposed savants like Rabbi Kissinger who is an utter alien to me. Reaction is to give the best amongst us power of our affairs, not Jews further power over us since they are incapable of governing us to the perfection of Order and Beauty only enriching themselves and leaving ugliness behind. At least Mencius is an honest fellow unlike the Jewish zealots here.

@ death maiden - your mention of the reintroduction of Roman law into Europe and its connection with the rise of absolute monarchy reminds me of a couple of Lord Dacre's (Hugh Trevor-Roper's) essays, "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe" and "The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century."

In the former essay, he points out that the original attitude of established Christianity in Europe was to regard witchcraft as a pagan superstition and to discourage belief in it. Indeed, Charlemagne decreed that anyone who put a person to death on the pretext that the victim was a witch, would himself be put to death. But the revival of Roman law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries reintroduced the use of torture, which was part of Roman criminal procedure. By the fifteenth century, torture, which had earlier been used to extract confessions of heresy, began to be put to use to extract confessions of witchcraft, and both were punishable by death - a complete reversal of the practice of the ninth century.

In "The General Crisis..." Trevor-Roper describes how the burgeoning of the "officer class" of courtiers and officials so increased the cost of government that it was ultimately unsustainable, leading to collapse. This collapse led either to centralization and consolidation - as in France under Richelieu, Mazarin, and the personal government of Louis XIV - or to parliamentary revolution, dictatorship, and eventually a constitutional monarchy dominated by Parliament, as in Britain.

I'm not sure that the revival of Roman law was connected too directly with the rise of absolute monarchy, although it is true that absolute monarchy flourished largely on the Continent, where law was substantially Romanized, whereas parliamentary government prevailed in England, where Roman law never supplanted the common law.

> the comments above about the discrepancy between jewish verbal or math ability are silly. jews excel at code, and both language and math are code, or rather, encodable.

Nah, the difference from gentiles is greater for verbal. It's all code, but they're different spheres of code. The math mean is like 108 and the verbal is like 119 or even 121. The math IQ may be nearly the same as in Japanese, but Ashkenazim probably have a bit higher creativity than E Asians, thus more eminent achievements.

I think that biology, compared to physics, loads much less on IQ and loads /relatively/ more on creativity, even though the best physicists must surely still be higher in creativity than the best biologists. The relative loading explains why the Ashkenazi-Eurogentile gap for great achievements is larger in physics than in bio, and larger in bio than in art. Euro non-jews and non-non-jews have the same creativity (I surmise).

The 'visuospatial' score is underwater - maybe 92 as I recall. Sorry. What could I say that would offer any consolation? - nothing, really. It reminds me of things like an underwater mortgage, a substandard performance, etc. And indeed, you arguably do better in music and writing than in architecture or painting. I think Mahler is much more essential than Chagal or Hundertwasser, who can certainly be enjoyable. My top fifteen painters are all purely gentile. Whereas Augie March, for me, is probably the best novel in English that I've had dealings with.

Is the reactosphere good or bad? Should we petition against it? For it?

I've maintained that it's impeccably ethical to undermine public confidence in the present system as much as possible. Everyone is in a 'mild' mood right now, because life is alright. The fruit of this mood is moderate acts. The present decade is a window of safety, during which we can take away allll the crazy lies in a state of philosophical tranquility. Relatively.

Things are just going to get worse and worse: there's racial demographic change, demographic aging, within-race dysgenesis on IQ and probably also on C, acheivement and economic production generally being proportional to the product of the two.

There's oil stuff... there's the possibility of increased warfare as the US subsides (hard) from hyperpower status.

So life will get a lot worse, unless newly invented technologies greatly augment wealth production (doubt it). Everyone will get all angry and violent. Lies that don't get boxed up and put away today will have to be disassembled in the future under these far surlier conditions. 'Surly' is a rather cutesy adjective, but this is not a joke. This is where ultra-violent regimes come from. Huge atrocities suck. Huge wars are kind of awesome, but on balance not really - and that's just on the per se or superficial level... when you ponder whether massive wars may have any deeper repercussions, you come across the thought that they may well be significantly dysgenic.

Our enemies are deluded. The deathstar memeplex featuring 17 different processes of decivilization must go away. It will die of disease. The only question is how bearable or how fucked up its uninstallment will be - and what we should replace it with.

> how about surgery, for your viseospatiality fetish. check the roster of neurosurgeons (or any surgical specialty) at sloan-kettering or, ahem, sinai -- or at any world-class hospital

Wow, 93. Boy, when you really come down to it... well it's just pretty fucking low, is all. I guess there's no putting a positive face on this one - I really did give it my honest best shot. It must suck having that burden to bear.

but look around. to me, to be a reactionary means to be a reactant against liberalism. to be anti-liberal means to desire substantial collective goals which, to some to degree, must by definition be imposed by violence; since, by definition, not all men will be able to conceive of and posit collective substantial beneficial goals, nor will all men benefit in the same way (or in some cases, at all) from collective substantial beneficial goals.

this is truly where genuine reaction and merely modified or mutated liberalism diverge. you can't believe in "spontaneous social order" and be a reactionary. you're just a liberal. you can't believe in the inherent ability of private enterprise to select leaders and provide optimum social benefit; if you do, you're just a rationalist, and a liberal. and it's tough titty

MICHAEL: thanks, will look into those trevor-roper essays. have only read his hitler book, a while ago

but i think you're overlooking the flipside of the roman-law conception of centralized sovereignty: absolute ownership, the cornerstone of capitalism, without which the transition from feudalism is inconceivable

@death maiden - actually, "absolute ownership" of real property was not a feature of the revival of Roman law on the Continent. The most "Romanized" countries preserved feudal tenures right up until the ends of their absolute monarchies. France did so until the end of the ancien régime; the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the "despotism" of which was Gladstone's bête noir, did until the nineteenth century - Lampedusa's "Il Gattopardo" is a novelistic account of its collapse.

By contrast, England abolished subinfeudation, which was central to the feudal hierarchy of duties and services, by the statute Quia emptores in the thirteenth century. Most other feudal tenures, as by knight service or socage, were swept away shortly after the restoration of Charles II, though copyhold and advowsons lingered into the twentieth century.

Real absolute ownership - i.e., allodial tenure, by which the owner of a property was as a little sovereign on his land, owing taxes or feuduties to no one, persisted on the fringes of Europe, in precisely those places where Roman law did not penetrate - e.g., in Scandinavia and its dependencies, and in Poland. There was and arguably still is allodial (udal) land ownership in the Orkneys. The Orcadians were badly upset by the "reform" of Scots land law, which remained formally feudal on the mainland, with baronies by tenure and subinfeudation. These were abolished by the devolved Scots parliament in a fit of progressivism, but the Act that did so, also (unthinkingly) got rid of allodial land law in the Orkneys. This is legally questionable, since the Orkneys are not under the direct rule of the kingdom of Scotland, but are held by it in perpetual pawn from the kingdom of Norway; ancient Norse law, rather than Scots law, historically applied in the Orkneys.

In any event, absolute ownership of movable property (personal property, goods and chattels) always existed under both Roman and common law; and it is such properties that are the stock in trade of capitalism. Financial capitalism had its exponents on the Continent, chiefly in the free cities of northern Italy and the Low Countries; but it found a more hospitable home under the common law of England than under the Romanized codes of the Continent. Buonaparte gave an indirect tribute to this when he characterized England as a "nation of shopkeepers."

@michael: nice insights, but contrasting the notion of legal title i mentioned -- quiritary right -- with full allodial right is a bit extreme, as the latter cannot be said to exist *today* in any common-law country.

though the history on this period and of this subject is a bit thin, the lineage i'm in says that increasing commodity production and exchange in town and country is what created the need for more comprehensive and hence centralized legality governing market transactions. the operative principle would be superficies solo cedit:

(you're right about england, where corporate and marine customary law were probably far advanced of what was to come on the continent.) guess who would be -- to some degree -- the odd class out in a move toward centralization that benefited the monarchy and the incipient burghers? frond, anyone?

to wit, trevor-johnson's "general crisis" idea (as i see on wp) is borrowed and modified from that of marxist doyenne eric hobsbawm. modified in the sense that the class relations and economics have been de-prioritized

If you read the Trevor-Roper essay you will find that it is not "borrowed and modified" so much as it is a direct response to Hobsbawm and other English Marxists.

English fee simple ownership (freehold) post Quia emptores is about as absolute a right in immovable property as any tenure known to the Romanized codes of Continental Europe before 1789. If you can think of any example in the latter that is (if I may apply a comparative to a superlative) more absolute, I should like to know it.

Of course, no form of title to private property of any sort today is as near to absolute as such titles were in the eighteenth century. Indeed, no title to private property today is as near to absolute as it was fifty years ago. I cannot do with my land today what my grandfather could have done with it when it was his.

This is why White Nationalism is not Reaction. Your typical WN wants to increases, not decrease, his personal power.

The WN wants to eliminate this particular power distribution because he wants to transfer that power to himself and his ilk.

This is completely false.

A desire for a Jew-free white ethnostate isn't necessarily a desire to impose the state over all, and it isn't necessarily a desire for more personal power.

There can be multiple Jew-free white ethnostates, some more democratic, others more absolutist. An individual could find his personal power decreased in a future Jew-free white ethnostate relative to his situation now under the contemporary regime.

You still haven't explained why any group has to share the same society with any other group. Why does the reactionary society, or any society for that matter, have to be cosmopolitan, multiethnic, multiracial, multicultural, etc.?

WNs are a democratic/populist (mickey-mouse) cult of violence. they, as the saying goes, are looking for a leader. too bad they're such little pussies. most smart people only encounter them when getting their cars repaired or observing porn -- but i, ashkenazi, with 12 years of martial-arts experience, can tell you they're complete wannabees. if you want to see what a real cult of violence feels like, get into a fight with a balkan or a slav or, for that matter, a dark south american. someone from a strongman society, countries run by intelligent gangsters encircled by the most adept at physical violence (and who are usually excellent fighters themselves)

See that's what I just don't understand.

We're so stupid and inferior. We're such pussies and we can't fight. We're just complete weaklings. We're inferior to Balkans, Slavs, dark South Americans, etc. We're basically the most inferior population group on the planet. We're sub-humans.

Therefore the only thing Jew-free states and white trash-free states are going to demonstrate to the external observer, to the whole wide world, is just how stupid and inferior we are, and how superior Jews are.

So how come you Jews and some gentiles get so hysterical over the idea of our Jew-free state?

What's the matter? What are you afraid of?

I just don't get it. If some Jews, or anyone else, tell me that they want their own white trash-free states where people like me can't ever step foot in, I totally support them and can only wish them the best of luck. And yet when I propose a similar idea, these people become meshugge and start kvetching like there's no tomorrow. What exactly is the problem here?

schmitt, in his book on hobbes, theorizes at length about why absolutism did not manifest in england. the gist is geopolitics, that it was simply more suited for commercial and sea power, which in turn corresponded to an "open" and "mixed" state form, one that required "no absolute monarchy, no standing land army, no state bureaucracy, no legal system of a law state such as became characteristic of continental states"

> it's hilarious to me the way people here backpedal from the implications of reactionary politics.

Which implications and backpedaling?

> the issue is not between "if" a reactionary state is a violent concentration of power or not, but the distinction between rationalist and irrationalist dictatorship.

Should you feel like expanding on this, or on whatever, I'll probably read closely.

> to me, to be a reactionary means to be a reactant against liberalism. to be anti-liberal means to desire substantial collective goals which, to some to degree, must by definition be imposed by violence; since, by definition, not all men will be able to conceive of and posit collective substantial beneficial goals, nor will all men benefit in the same way (or in some cases, at all) from collective substantial beneficial goals. [new paragraph] this is truly where genuine reaction and merely modified or mutated liberalism diverge.

OK yes, I think I understand.

Matters are a little blurry though with left-liberals.

Right-liberals are easy to understand: they simply want a non-activist state. They can be very interested in collective goals, only they don't want them pursued within the state.

Left-liberals do have collective goals, such as re-ordering society to minimize acts and thoughts that are discriminatory on the basis of race or gender. The goal of this collective work (of thought-policing, lengthily discussing inclusiveness and tolerance, etc) is the individual emancipated from discriminatory situations or whatever.

However, I too pursue collective or communitarian goals whose final goal is the individual. Just like a left-liberal, I'm collectivist in means, not in ultimate ends. A collective - such as an ethny, family, circle of friendship, or local or national community - is no more sentient than a stone or a tree, so it can't be an ultimate ethical end. Rather, the point of these collectives is that they subserve the individual's eudaimonia. They give him something to do with his /virtu/, thus they give him a reason to gain and maintain virtu, and without this reason he tends to focus much more on the lower, shallower part of the spectrum of happiness types, namely the 'hedonia' band of the spectrum. The whole idea of eudaimonism being that some pleasures or desirable states are deeper and sort of cleaner than others, in a word better than others - but also more difficult... and we should strive to focus on them because they are better and because we'll be very glad we did, not because it's "right" according to moral scolds or moral codes that are taken as authoritative for whatever reason. "Moraline-free /virtu/" as Nietzsche put it, playing on 'caffeine' and 'nicotine'.

Rather, I think the difference has more to do with the right (meaning Nietzsche, not the GOP) adhering to eudaimonism, and something more like utilitarianism on the left. I have some difficulty though in thinking this through.

i personally have a problem with considering any form of "free-market" economy to be reactionary proper. market mechanisms imply unconscious decision making -- that is, immanent decision making, immanent to the process. that is ... his mighty hand.

liberalism, which is an economics and theory of legality, does not posit substantial goals but creates norms. for this reason, i'd say your example of civil rights as a substantial goal is wrong: it's a procedural norm: i.e., it expands normativity. bike helmets do actually seem substantial, however, on a tiny scale.

right-liberalism to me denotes austrians, hayek, etc., the night-watchman state. i don't see how they could be said to posit substantial collective goals since they don't even believe in society per se, but "civil association." i assume they want an oligarchic-constitutional state, neo-feudalism. order without purpose, so the jargon goes. but without purpose there can be no eudaemonia, could there? (to be the concept refers to highest alignment with one's deterministic ability, fullness of purpose)

> that is, immanent decision making, immanent to the process. that is ... his mighty hand.

The invisible hand, I take it. I think the market is good on the consumption side, in creating the right concrete products for us to consume. Not that it necessarily matters hugely, I think, to absolutely maximize our material well being; I don't want to drive a Trabant but anything better than that is fine.

I'm more skeptical about the free market in respects of the production side. I'm skeptical of our ceasing to manufacture goods of the less-durable class, in contrast to Germany. I'm sympathetic to Distributism, skeptical of having all things done by impersonal corporations where smart people deal in specialized abstractions and don't rub shoulders with other castes, in contrast to how things are in small business. Their minds were probably more vigorous when they got out on the factory floor every week to see what good and bad their ideas were engendering in concrete reality. That said I don't really want to move the entirety population back to small proprietorships.

As for a free market in art and philosophy, I haven't thought about it much. I would be quite hesitant about ideas of limiting it.

> liberalism, which is an economics and theory of legality, does not posit substantial goals but creates norms. for this reason, i'd say your example of civil rights as a substantial goal is wrong: it's a procedural norm: i.e., it expands normativity.

I can't see it that way. Civil rights is a penultimate end - ultimate except of course for the individual who is the final end and the only one who can benefit (eudaimonically or hedonically), the Black race or female gender not being sentient as such. When we bracket out for simplicity's sake that little nicety - which I think applies to /every/ collective goal alike - then 'civil rights' or the 'non-racist' society is an ultimate end. Even if it is a procedure or norm, that procedure or norm is the ultimate end. Therefore I can't see denying that it is a 'goal', a collective goal.

> order without purpose, so the jargon goes. but without purpose there can be no eudaemonia, could there? (to be the concept refers to highest alignment with one's deterministic ability, fullness of purpose)

Yes, I agree. The sketch I try to make is that eudaimonia is not so much happiness or pleasure alone, but better rendered as flourishing or blessedness (meant in not necessarily religious or supernatural way). This flourishing consists in doing fine or noble things by way of hardy striving, as opposed to decadence or indulgence or just chilling and having fun to too great an extent, as opposed to wasting or corrupting talents and courage.

You strive your way through a sort of suffering, though it may be only modest suffering, in order to cultivate virtues; you practice drawing for 7,000 hours, or learn to be funny by practice and criticism, or you go through military training in order to fight in Martel's force or conquer Gaul. It does have a tremendous amount to do with having practical purposes. You train your marksmanship for home defense; even if you never do have to defend the home, the attainment of competency gives you a measure of fulfillment which is better than say watching the average TV series - and yet if there were no possibility at all of having to defend the home, marksmanship would be considerably less satisfying. Or, however modest one man's expectation of altering the world by posting on history and philosophy in the reactosphere, this rather noble activity is elevating and fulfilling mostly because it may make a small difference in the political future, the fate of the White race or whatever. Political discussion would have less value if we two, or you and MM, had been marooned on an islet for seven years so far. We would probably do less of it and substitute something else, such as meditation, hiking. The practices of art, or math, surely lose about half their value, if the practitioner is stranded on an islet alone. Video games are agreed to be very low in value, partly because they serve very little purpose.

Under hard-right-liberalism, under 'order without purpose', there are still other purposes: you can serve the self, the family, circle of friends, local community. You can also serve mankind at large, though I think it is rather alienating for universalist service to have all the legitimacy, and service to a nation, ethny, race to have no legitimacy whatsoever... which is of course how it is for most Whites today, causing them to play at least a bit more video games than they would otherwise play, and engage in civil society less than they otherwise would. ('Diversity', according to Putnam, being a major cause of 'bowling alone'.)

You could even decide to serve some purpose that you think the state has or ought to have, even though it is officially supposed to be 'order without purpose'.

But even to largely lose just one sphere of purpose among others, the state, may not be without effect. Moreover, these levels of purpose are not entirely separate and independent, I should think. Rather, they each lend some resonance to the others. Presumably the family, the local community, etc are going to have /somewhat less/ of a coherent purpose if the state is designed to be purposeless. A lot of right-libs probably want that, because they tend not to really like the common purposes that other people construct. But you and I are rather skeptical of that. Even if a right-liberal state were only for say Englishmen - which might violate perfect 'minarchy' but is entirely reasonable, seeing as adding a large mass of say Mestizos will make the state much less likely to remain right-liberal - I could still have considerable doubts that this state is optimal. -While I don't feel inspired to ponder it deeply at this instant, it occurs to me that this state might not be too far from MM's ideal.

Recently Paul Gottfried said the essence of rightism was inequalitarianism. Again, I suspect it may really be eudaimonism. Consider that Nietzsche had major romantic aspects, but he was most essentially a eudaimonist who desired a civilization full of flourishing or greatness: great art and philosophy, passionate love affairs and friendships, even great wars full of heroism. This led him to forcefully reject romanticism's equalitarianism, folkism, anti-aristocratism, anti-war feeling, and its loosening of the masculine ideal by way of valorizing sensitivity ('sensibility', they used to say). Nietzsche liked sensitivity and emotional passion, but felt it essential that they be balanced by discipline, realism, /active/ energy - especially in males. All this is why he, like Goethe before him, soon tempered his early romanticism and began espousing that thoroughly eudaimonist and vigorous Hellas and Rome must be our primary ideal, and romanticism a secondary source of ideals or input. Both men declared that romanticism was valuable, and a necessary corrective to the 'pale atheist' and 'mechanical cosmos' of the Enlightenment, but that it was deeply related to decadence, relaxation, decay, illness, and neurosis.

So, it may really be eudaimonism that underlies most rightists' feelings in favor of hierarchy and against silly equalism. Though there is something else behind this feeling, too: the attempt to make the individual, family, and society survive in the first place. Before you can flourish or be great, you have to survive first, and probably have at least a small house or apartment, as well as some manner of security arrangements; equalism can be a problem for these more basic necessities, too.